After speaking with the Suwanee City Manager's office, I am thrilled to say this course will be designed by some of the very best! Sean Murphy, the landscape architect who they have engaged for this project, has partnered with John David and Patti Kunkle!!!

The City Manager's office has kindly invited the GDGO Board members out for a sneak peek; I will post details after touring it.

We have completed the construction of the tee pads for Suwanee Creek DGC and received approval on them yesterday. To clarify, Planet Earth Designs was only contracted for the tee pad construction. All design, clearing and basket sleeve installation was by others.

We have suggested some additional clearing of branches and vines in the fairways as well as some signage for safety concerns. Hopefully they will iron out these final details and have the course in good shape for the opening tournament weekend on May 2-3. Lastly, when you're throwing, please be mindful of the trail users out there.

Renoryn wrote:We have completed the construction of the tee pads for Suwanee Creek DGC and received approval on them yesterday. To clarify, Planet Earth Designs was only contracted for the tee pad construction. All design, clearing and basket sleeve installation was by others.

We have suggested some additional clearing of branches and vines in the fairways as well as some signage for safety concerns. Hopefully they will iron out these final details and have the course in good shape for the opening tournament weekend on May 2-3. Lastly, when you're throwing, please be mindful of the trail users out there.

So it's gonna be another "OLD Wills layout" or "frog" layout? With good one after the other holes, but not Event friendly design and with paths in play - Or is it not as bad with paths as you are hinting at?

1) The trail is not terribly busy.2) On 1 hole, from the long tee, you throw across a path. The tee is elevated.3) On 2 other holes, the path is in play along the left side. We asked for signage on the trail at those locations.

They heard our concerns about the trail, but honestly, there wasn't much choice if the course was going to flow well at all.

Tournament sign-up will be available this weekend.

Some spots are reserved for the City of Suwanee. I believe there are around 50 spots left at the moment

I will announce the sign-up here, the GDGO site and on the ADGO Facebook page.

I think they will keep the baskets out until the tournament since there is still some work to be done on the course before opening.

Keith, it shouldn't be too bad if golfers wait for people to pass before throwing. The soft trail gets pretty regular use all day from what we saw out there this past month. People would stop and ask what the tee pads were for and we would explain. Only a couple people seemed disgruntled that another use was moving in on their trail territory... I just want us golfers to do our part to avoid any conflicts.

This post reflects only my views, not those of my sponsors, friends, associates, employers, or other affiliated parties.

I had my first opportunity to play the full installation of Suwanee Creek Park, and would like to express both support and concern for the park and course. I am always excited to see new courses going in, particularly with the full support of public entities, because it means better access to playing and exposure to the community. However, the design of Suwanee Creek is strange, and I foresee some significant user conflicts with pedestrians on the busy network of paths throughout the park. Those paths are an equally legitimate form of recreation; their existence precedes (and volume of usership may mean that they preclude) that of the disc golf course.

There are absolutely some interesting shots on this course, and some challenging and legitimate holes. There are also some terrible holes. I observed a recurrent theme throughout the course (holes 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18) where the intended fairway is either impossible to reach the basket, or much longer after the turn than before. I do not believe that a hole with few birdies (and requiring luck or a long putt to achieve same) necessarily constitutes a challenging hole; nor does lack of a landing zone suitable for its intended user group. In throwing these holes previously and today, I have often been frustrated by hole shapes-despite my efforts to manipulate my discs, some holes at this course truly are unreachable without an absurd amount of luck, but for most users, even beginners, they are not long enough to truly be multi-shot holes. There are also some unnecessarily small gaps that make several holes play unfairly--hole 10 is a huge culprit in this regard. Beginners, as well as advanced players, want to feel like they can have success in the game; holes that are poorly designed and don't have a repeatable and viable way of playing them (without being skill-level dependent) make the experience far less enjoyable for all users. In addition, being able to see the basket from the tee without walking for nearly half the hole is an underrated part of a positive experience--some blind holes are fine, 9 is far too many. Holes 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 18 (long) are particular offenders of this suggestion.

Numerous holes are too close to other parts of the park, and bad shots or even good shots with unfortunate kicks will find their way onto paths, picnic areas, and paved areas. In the time I have spent in the park, I've seen on the order of 50-100 pedestrians per hour making use of the walking paths; that's already fairly busy; if it gets busier on weekends or other high-traffic disc golf times, then someone will be inconvenienced. I, too, want to believe the best of disc golfers, but I know that some are impatient, erratic, and occasionally you just don't see somebody until it's too late. I am not aware of the specific liability or legal ramifications to designers, constructors, or park owners for the possible accidents that may occur, but I do know that I make throwing mistakes as well as anyone, and that being hit by a disc hurts. Even in large parks, with disc golf set apart from other activities, there are bound to be some errant shots that find their way to strange places, but this park is something else. With a precedent already set for lawsuits as a result of disc golf accidents, it is in our best interest to collectively minimize this possiblity. Most of us reading (or writing) this post and forum probably have some control over where our discs are going, we also have seen or played with players who can throw one high-speed driver in a general direction at a high velocity. The shots we need to prepare and design for aren't always the perfect ones, they're the ones 3 standard deviations beyond terrible.

This next point is more incriminating of the mind of a disc golfer than anything. I walk up to a hole, and I want to find the easiest way to get to the basket. Always. I'm not alone in this; most golfers want to find a way to "cheat" the design of a hole. So even though I want to believe that I can get to the basket, a frequent occurrence is a disc skipping, kicking, or flying through an area I might not have intended. For example, I played with a golfer today who threw a "hyzer line" on hole 17, that avoids the intended (absurd) fairway by throwing onto the path and attempting to skip down to the basket. The path above the teepad is largely a blind shot, but it's preferable enough that I could understand his logic in attempting to reach the basket that way. I think this is an instance where mandos won't really solve the problem, because the "fairway" is just plain dumb and golfers will try it anyway. On hole 13, I tried to skip a Firebird around the right side, and came within a foot of the path by punching through a thin wall of brush (likely to be trampled eventually). That's a pretty reasonable shot, one I could see many players trying--if that's what happens on a pretty straightforward hole, where else will we see golfers "cheating" the course and introducing unforeseen problems?

I believe that on every single hole, I could be within the circle and not have a putt at at least one spot. Whatever the design notes were for contracted clearing of the holes, they evidently did not include creating actual greens. This is one of the most frustrating things I find on a course; I wish to be rewarded for a shot that puts me close to the basket with a minimally obstructed putt--I do not mind mature trees, but vines, privet, new growth, and scrubby brush really doesn't serve much of an ecological niche, nor does it provide for an enjoyable experience to a disc golfer. In addition, many holes on the course were not adequately cleared in the throwing lanes. Branches, vines, and trees are still very much in play on holes 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 18. I also think that a good design concept is to create an off-fairway density gradient that reduces the penalty for being just a few feet off the fairway; Suwanee Creek pretty much has fairway and ridiculous shule, but no early rough. All of these remaining obstacles combine to make a strongly invalid course. I hope that this is can be chalked up to the course not being a finished product, rather than its eventual state. Real greens benefit all disc golfers.

I was very pleased to see the addition of 6x6 steps; these are well-made and so long as they're anchored to a packed undersoil will be excellent erosion control on the most popular paths. I hope that the currently scraped paths on holes 2, 4->5, 5->6, and 6 will be either graveled or mulched to avoid compaction. The teepads, baskets, and signage are professional and more than adequate. The signs are well-made and sufficiently detailed, but the diagrams are often dramatically understated, and the posts are frequently oriented at insensible angles.

I am a little curious who has been involved throughout the conception, design, and construction of this course. My present understanding is that the designer and contractors responsible for clearing had some input from disc golfers, but evidently have not taken their ideas seriously. The shapes of these holes, size and placement of gaps, remaining obstacles in fairways, and proximity to other park features suggest to me that the involved parties are unaware of the mechanics of disc golf and what constitutes a quality hole. I hope that, for those of us who already play disc golf and want to see more courses in the area, this serves as a notice to the importance of having designers and constructors who are well-attuned to the needs and minds of disc golfers, and already have some experience with course design and maintenance._______________________Hole-by-hole notes.

Hole 1: This is a fine hole. I would like to see more clearing near the basket, but it's a fine, skill-level appropriate, and minimally intrusive hole. Some disc golfers I met today said they had been asked to move their bags from the walking path, which is where social dynamics suggest they're most likely to leave their bags--inviting a user conflict with the round hardly begun.

Hole 2: This is a pretty dumb hole. Its shape, as I indicated above, is longer after the turn than before. It wouldn't be terrible with more clearing on the left side after the turn, and a little more right and short of the basket. There are about four strands of barbed wire 100 feet short of the basket on the left side. I could easily see a hard, straight shot or a tree kick putting a disc into the street, which is a significant safety concern. The checkdam in the drainage hopefully won't be an ankle-breaker or result in more distributed flow around the area. Teepad for 3 is waaaaay too close to the basket.

Hole 3: This is also a fine hole. Clearing low shule within 25-30 feet of the basket would improve it greatly.

Hole 4: The birdhouse needs to go. I'm a little worried about the proximity of the amphitheater, but I haven't seen anyone using it yet. This is absolutely a hole where an off-fairway density gradient would be a dramatic improvement.

Hole 5: This is a very similar hole shape to 2. I haven't seen the wetlands really in play, and the green area is a good one. Still, the sharpness and length of this turn results in Not-A-Golf-Shot for many, many players. There is potential for conflict with the path, which is only about 20-25 feet past the basket.

Hole 6: A very solid hole from both teepads. Personally, think the short pad is a little unnecessary because the "water hazard" isn't much to speak of, even for a recreational player. I saw multiple shots get kicked to finish onto the walking path to the left. There is minimal clearing in this green right now, so a 15-footer might be impossible. 7's teepad is way too close, particularly since it's on the line that both drives reaching the pin, and upshots from the fairway are likely to come in on.

Hole 7: I don't have strong enough words for how bad this hole is. How on earth did this get approved? Did no one, in any of the walkthroughs, think to question the inevitable safety concerns associated with throwing directly at a walking path, for which oncoming users are blind from the teepad? I'd put even money on this being the hole that shuts down the course. I'm not even going to comment on the gap, the shule, the green, nothing, because this hole should not exist in its current form.

Hole 8: For a beginner course, one of the better holes. Short, straightforward, flat. No problems here.

Hole 9: A beefier complement to hole 8, and one of the better lines on the course. However, I feel that the 6-7 foot gap 160 feet off the pad, leading to the left basket position, is unfair and capricious. That gap is unnecessarily demanding; at that distance and width it's skill that gets you to the gap and luck that gets you through it--making it a dumb gap for my level, and a dumb gap for a first or second shot for most, if not all, players. This hole also needs to be cleaned out around the green. DGers are already creating a desire path from the walking trail, directly to the back of the teepad, which makes the sign's orientation and location inconvenient. That's something an experienced designer would/should have picked up on quickly.

Hole 10: This is a dumb gap. Discs do not fly this way. This is also a dumb gap for people trying to lay up, because the lane to the basket isn't very forgiving, and the "landing zone" is tiny. Basically, it doesn't suit any user groups.

Hole 11: Sort of an East Roswell #8 light. This is a fine hole for beginners, but not great for many others. Eventually, someone's vehicle, parked in a reasonable location in a parking lot, is going to get hit, or someone will throw over the fence into the retention pond.

Hole 12: This used to be a nice place to have a picnic, now it's a great place to get brained while you're trying to grill. Less than 30 feet from the grill to the short basket position. The walking path is also very much in play on this hole. I'll set the over/under on number of first-time users who actually play this hole at 20%.

Hole 13: A pretty good hole, and one of the more conspicuous to the walking path--it's good in the sense that it will be a good introduction, like #1, to non-disc golfers. I see some creative shots (skips, over-the-top, etc) interfering with the existing walking path.

Hole 14: Straightforward, solid hole. Going about 40 long could put you on the walking path.

Hole 15: We've got another good hole here. Off-fairway density gradient (most especially on the high side, as trimming the low side would increase the frequency of discs kicking/trickling down to the walking path below) would be a great inclusion. Hole 16's teepad is more or less on the line to the basket from the tee and fairway, and inside the circle.

Hole 16: This is a terrible and impossible hole. I can only imagine that the designer wanted to balance the course with an absurd right turn to balance the absurd left turns from before. There are plenty of branches, vines, and trees that need to go before this hole could even begin to be legitimate. It's only about 45 feet from the basket to 17's tee... not terrible, but not great either.

Hole 17: This is also a terrible and impossible hole. The fairway has numerous branches interfering with the flight lines. Any conventional shot using the fairway will not reach the hole, or even be within birdie range. The most successful shot I have seen, as I alluded to above, has been by throwing a skip shot off the path to the right. A better hole could have been achieved with a teepad downhill of where 16's basket is (assuming, of course, that 16 remained in its foolish state), and throwing uphill using the second half of the existing fairway on 17. There are also a ridiculous number of intrusive branches directly in what I must assume is the intended flight path for this hole. 18's long pad is pretty close to 17's basket.

Hole 18: Putting a basket 20 feet (+/- 5) from a pavilion is not a good idea in any possible way. I see that and say " great, a backstop, let's really rip on it". Any rational park user sees that and says "this picnic table is a good place to be". From the long/left pad, this is an awful hole. There is not a true route to the right basket without getting absurdly lucky, and the straight shot out of the existing gap results in being behind the pavilion. Numerous limbs remain in the throwing lanes. From the short tee, this isn't a bad hole, with the exception of where the basket is located.

In summary, I applaud the city of Suwanee and those who have worked to get the course installed. I am worried that because of the small area of the park, and the close proximity of the course to other park features (including paths, pavilions, picnic areas, parking lots, and roads), there will be significant safety concerns that I fear may prove detrimental to future public support of this course in particular, and disc golf in general. I hope that as this course develops and changes, we will see maintenance of the throwing lines and greens to improve the playability of the course, but in its current and early iteration, I foresee issues arising. Please feel free to provide additional insight, tell me how and why I'm wrong, and anything else you care to do. I'm pretty invested in the growth of this sport, and I'm more concerned than excited about what Suwanee Creek can offer.

I freaking love this course. Enough said. I would have liked it more if the fairways were 30 feet wide and if somehow you happen to not find the fairway there's maybe 1 or 2 really skinny trees that even if you aimed at them you couldn't hit them for a rough. And the holes could be shorter. Way shorter. Just my opinion not really. FYI I finished my round by bogeying 3 of the last 4 holes and I started on 1. And lost by 2. Only because those holes are so challenging to even get par. The course requires a person to either learn new ways to throw the disc or settle for par or worse. I'm sure over time a few things on certain holes will work out.

[quote="mullethead326"]This post reflects only my views, not those of my sponsors, friends, associates, employers, or other affiliated parties.

Wow...that was um....did this course kill your mother or something?

I have played five rounds there since it opened on Thursday and I couldn't disagree more with 90% of your "reviews". Dude, it's a brand new course...it's going to have kinks and things that need to be worked out, but it looks like it took you longer to write the review than it did to play the course! Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and interpretation of the way the course plays, but maybe consider playing more than one round before writing such a scathing and damning review. I've already seen some other players shoot six down out there, so it's not as "impossible" as you make it sound. It takes a skilled, accurate touch shot to find your way around the course and if you are having a tough time with it, then maybe start by looking at yourself and your shot selection.

From the way you describe your perfect course throughout your review, I think Gwinnett has a course made just for you!!! Lenora!!! Wide open spaces and plenty of room to just throw the disc....wherever! Suwanee Creek was designed to be tight, technical and to take the advantage away from the big power throwers. I have loved every round I've played out there and I'm thankful for the hard work and thoughtful planning that went in to making it fun to play.

Now, the one thing you and I can agree on Mullethead326 is #17. In my opinion, the left side of the corner beech tree could be trimmed back. <-That's a review by the way, not sure if you're familiar with how these things work. Other than that, I think the course needs some foot traffic to beat back the low hanging vines and small limbs. That happens with time and I'm confident with as many rounds as I will get to play there that I'll be part of the solution.

In summary Mullethead326, your review sounds pretty ridiculous. Maybe start by reviewing things that are a little more in your wheelhouse? Action figures, sandcastles, Saturday morning cartoons? With a name like Mullethead...well I'm sure you get the point.

Way to go in bashing the guy and his review just because it's of a different opinion than yours. Do you know him in real life or just from reading this post? He is allowed to state his opinion just like you are. A review should go into more detail than just "In my opinion, the left side of the corner beech tree could be trimmed back." That doesn't tell us much about the hole or anything else really, just that a beech tree needs trimming.

My opinion is just as valid as yours or his, so you can dismount that high horse whenever you'd like. I'm just pointing out that 20 pages of whining is not my idea of a review. All of which is my opinion and I'm free to post it wherever the hell I'd like to.

I am not on any high horse. I just think it's not very productive to bash someone when they state an opinion or their review on a course. Sure, disagree with what he said and write your own, but don't talk to the guy like he is stupid just because he wrote a lengthy review and you don't agree with it. Also, judging folks by their screen names doesn't do much in a positive light for the sport either. Explain how all that helps anyone?

Look, I agree with you on that. Maybe I was a bit to personal with my post. I read his review and felt like it was unfair to the course and any unknowing players that may read it and not play the course because of it. I was posting to let people know that there is an awesome course in Suwanee that a lot of people worked really hard to bring to us. So, maybe allow more time for the small things to work out, make suggestions where you want changes to be made, that kind of thing, but save the full "Don't Play Here" review until the course has had some time to develop. I think I probably could of used more tact in describing it, but I still think his review is way off target.

I believe this was intended to give productive, honest feedback - not "don't play here". He is doing a service by pointing out some major design flaws, especially the spots that have liability and lawsuit written all over them. Better to address those now than after somebody walking in the park gets injured by a disc. That's very bad for everyone in our community.

As a course designer, I welcome any and all feedback - especially detailed critical feedback like this. If something can be improved it should be. If there is a blatant safety issue it absolutely needs to be addressed proactively. We all want more courses and safe design is essential to that happening.

Mullet is also one of the most skilled players in the state and a very good judge of design, in spite of his haircut.

Clayson, being a new course is no excuse for these design flaws. The course growing older will not fix any of the design issues. Without a complete redesign (and baskets that are normal height) this course is destined to suck until it gets pulled from hurting other park users or their property.

In the 150+ courses I have played in the last dozen years, this is one of the worst designs I've ever seen.

And btw- I shot really well on my first round out there, so it has nothing to do with that.

I played almost all of this course yesterday before it got dark. I am frankly shocked that it is being attacked in this fashion. Is it good? No not at all; it's horrible, but there are lots of courses around like this one and some that are worse that don't get attacked like this. I would say East Roswell is just as bad and every course at the IDGC and the hippodrome is probably worse. I would also say Tom Tripplett is just as bad as well. The only thing those courses have over this one is length but that doesn't make them any better or any fairer. I pretty much never agree with what other disc golfers do or think but this criticism of this course in relation to others is truly baffling to me. I would bet most of you view all the courses I just mentioned as solid or even good "pro level" courses that require "skill" and "course management" with great "risk reward." It seems like there is a bit of a popularity contest going on here more so than actual objective analysis of course design.

Big Red wrote:I played almost all of this course yesterday before it got dark. I am frankly shocked that it is being attacked in this fashion. Is it good? No not at all; it's horrible, but there are lots of courses around like this one and some that are worse that don't get attacked like this. I would say East Roswell is just as bad and every course at the IDGC and the hippodrome is probably worse. I would also say Tom Tripplett is just as bad as well. The only thing those courses have over this one is length but that doesn't make them any better or any fairer. I pretty much never agree with what other disc golfers do or think but this criticism of this course in relation to others is truly baffling to me. I would bet most of you view all the courses I just mentioned as solid or even good "pro level" courses that require "skill" and "course management" with great "risk reward." It seems like there is a bit of a popularity contest going on here more so than actual objective analysis of course design.

I haven't observed any "attacks" on the course in this thread. Mullethead's analysis was well-written and provided out of concern for the course. He didn't have to spend the time to share some valid concerns about the safety of the course but I'm glad he did. Criticism can commonly elicit defensiveness but if it is civil and constructive (as it was) it deserves acceptance and reflection, whether we agree with it or not.

I've had the chance to play the course half a dozen times in May and the course has grown on me. There should be concerns for everyone about the proximity and likelihood of discs hitting the walking paths or other populated areas on 6, 7, 12 & 18.

I'm not of the school of thought that every hole needs to be reachable from the teepad but 10 & 11 are some of the weakest holes on the course. 10 does not provide any opportunity for consistency in scoring as there is no real path to the basket. 11 provides limited risk/reward for nearly any skill level although I may have observed subtly changing with some trimming on the left side the last time I played. Holes 2, 16 & 17 aren't ideal disc golf holes but I've observed how a fortunate drive can be rewarded on each.

I don't think the comparisons to the IDGC or East Roswell are adequate. They are just some of the most notable wooded courses in Georgia. Both parks are far more polished. I think Suwannee Creek can join them with some re-evaluation and adjustments. It certainly makes good use of elevation changes and variety in shot selection.